baker v. carr

baker v. carr - the case that made justice whittaker resign

the facts: tenn has not had a reapportionment of voting districts in 60 years. baker is a rep in memphis (shelby county), and his district has almost 10x the population than the rural districts, which still had more voting power. carr is the sec of st in tenn, and baker sues him ex officio. baker argues that the disproportionment has caused him to fail to receive the equal protection guaranteed under the 14th amd't. tenn argued that this was a political question for the legislature to decide.

the issue: is the challenge to the reapportionment of the tn legislature a political question barred by the justiciability limits on the court, or is it an equal protection question, which is well within the justiciability rights of the court?

the reasoning: Just b/c a suit seeks protection of a political right does not mean that it presents a political question. Nonjusticiability of a political question is primarily a function of the separation of powers and must be argued on a case by case basis.

Foreign relations: precedent says all foreign relations questions are political questions, but this is not true. It has been said that if there has been no conclusive governmental action then a court can construe a treaty and may find it provides the answer.

Dates of duration of hostilities: when there needs to be definable clarification for a decision, the political question barrier falls away.

Validity of enactments: with political questions, come the need to clarify policy, determine initial policy, to settle what is judicially discoverable and manageable standards to answering it. Unless one of these issues is undeniably tied into the case-at-bar, then there should be no dismissal for nonjusticiability on the ground of a political question's presence.

It's argued that this is a case which has not yet been considered: those which involve the Guaranty Clause and the guaranty of a republican form of gov't, which involves a political question.

Justice Brennan established the contours of the PQD in Baker v. Carr: (6 potential factors)

Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found:

(1) a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;

(2) or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;

(3) or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion;

(4) or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of government;

(5) or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;

(6) or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

the holding: The “political question” doctrine is based in the separation of powers and whether a case is justiciable is determined on a case by cases basis. In regards to foreign relations, if there has been no conclusive governmental action regarding an issue then a court can construe a treaty and decide a case. Regarding the dates of the duration of hostilities, when there needs to be definable clarification for a decision, the court may be able to decide the case.

The court held that this case was justiciable and did not present a political question. The case did not present an issue to be decided by another branch of the government. The court noted that judicial standards under the Equal Protection Clause were well developed and familiar, and it had been open to courts since the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to determine if an act is arbitrary and capricious and reflects no policy. When a question is enmeshed with any of the other two branches of the government, it presents a political question and the Court will not answer it without further clarification from the other branches.